A couple days ago, I wrote a pretty harsh criticism of Politco for what I thought was an utterly irresponsible "team investigating" of the Clinton Family Foundation, where it's big story was that BIll Clinton used his own pension money to help fund his admirable charity, and they acknowledged finding nothing illegal. Now, it's CNN's turn. A quick-eyed viewer spotted a scroll across the bottom of a CNN story about the NY City bomber, and caught a screen-grab of it. It was pretty reprehensible. It's worth bringing to CNN's attention, as many others have, that it's not a question of whether the suspect in question "deserves" his civil rights, but that it is the obligation of the United States to insure that his rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution are protected. You don't waive those, blithely or otherwise. We don't ever see CNN scrolling a question on whether a suspect deserves his Second Amendment rights because he might have used a gun to kill someone. Nor do we see CNN ever scrolling a question about if a publication deserves its First Amendment rights if it's published something that was used in a crime or in terrorism. But here, CNN inexplicably gives aid and comfort to the racist, intolerant, fascist view pushed by Donald Trump on his questions about suspects. Note to CNN: just because Donald Trump says something abhorrent doesn't mean you have to give it credibility. But then, CNN has been far more irresponsible this election that seems acceptable. That they have Donald Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski as one of their regular analysts is mind-numbing -- and that was before it just came out that he's still on the Trump campaign payroll. (They claim it's a monthly severance stipend. But then, they also claim that if the Trump kids ran their dad's foundation, it would be a "blind trust.") And for some inexplicable reason they keep the addle-brained Katrina Pierson on as an expert Trump analyst despite her continually saying things like President Obama was responsible for the Afghan War (he hadn't even been elected a U.S. Senator yet), or that it was President Obama's change in tactics were responsible for the death of Capt. Humayun Khan, the son of Khizir Khan (Mr. Obama was still only in the Illinois State Senate at the time)!! And for some incomprehensible reason they keep ace Trump spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany on as a regular -- a person so wildly out-of-control, maniacally partisan that she once broke up the entire panel by claiming Donald Trump was headed for a landslide. Have Trump spokesman on, that's good journalism. Have outspoken Trump spokesman who excoriate Hillary Clinton with what they consider a relentless stream of disqualifying facts. That's good journalism, too. But when you cross the line with garbage like this, and with ignoramuses who you promote as "experts" who literally don't have a clue with what they're talking about, who get basic facts repeatedly wrong and and who are so BAD that their fellow-panelists laugh at and ridicule them on air, you risk ceasing to be a journalistic enterprise and instead become a circus of pandering. And that it leads to an on-screen scroll questioning whether a suspect "deserves" his Constitutional RIGHTS, all because you're pandering the fascist screeds of the racist Trump campaign, then your risk nears reality.
0 Comments
During the Olympics, NBC ran a barrage of ads for their upcoming shows -- which to me was a towering avalanche, given how much Olympic coverage I watched -- and a few piqued my interest, but the which (for me) was highest on the list was The Good Place, starring Kristen Bell and Ted Danson. The ads were cute, and amusing, but it turns out really didn't give a full indication of what the show was. From the ads, it looked like it was about a quirky woman who's died and finds herself in what is essentially heaven, and having a fun time. It was done with verve, though wasn't clear what the direction of the show was. But pretty much anything with Kristen Bell in it, and I'll likely at least give it a chance. The one-hour premiere was on the other night, and I thought it was wonderful. And wondeful for several reasons, which is always a good sign, not just having to rely on one thing. It may not be for everyone's taste, which I'll get to, but it definitely was for mine. The premise of the show is slightly different than the indication given in the ads. It's not that the TV ads were deceptive -- not at all, just that they don't go far enough. This Good Place is beatific and absolutely wonderful, made up of countless neighborhoods, each unique with 322 perfectly-matched residents. Ted Danson plays a sort of manager given his first chance to design his own neighborhood, which he's done to an immaculate degree, down to including a lot of different frozen yogurt stores. ("It turns out that people really like frozen yogurt," he explains.) Into this perfection comes Kristen Bell. And soon enough she realizes she's not supposed to be there. Someone screwed up big time. They have her name right, but everything about her life is wrong. She's not the glorious, wonderful person who helped save refugee children, but a totally selfish egotist. She confides her secret to one person, but doesn't want to turn herself in because the Bad Place is, apparently, sort of hellish. The problem is that because something is wrong, out of place (her), when her worst instincts take over then things go horribly wrong in this little corner of perfection. So, she realizes she has to restrain herself as much as possible, and begs her one reluctant confidante (a former college ethics professor) to help teach her how to be good. One thing I especially love is when a TV show tries to be different. Even when it doesn't succeed, I admire the effort, and it pushes the form. And The Good Place is without question different from most TV fare. They've created a unique world that isn't seen on TV and it's impressive that the show got on. It's a rare combination of whimsy (which I personally love, though I know isn't for everyone), fantasy, and grounded. But it's one thing to be different, and another to pull it off. And that's yet another reason I liked the show -- because I found what was going on to be clever and intelligent and charming and often very funny. There are a lot of cultural references that add to the story, but good dialogue, as well. One running joke is that it's impossible to swear in the Good Place, so as much as such phrases spill out from Bell, they come across different, like, "I'm really forked," or when she describes her neighbor in the Good Place as a real "ash hole." Perturbed by her words not being right, she asks her friend -- "You do understand that when I say 'ash hole,' I'm not actually saying 'ash hole,' but 'ash hole'...?" To which the guy replies with sardonically, "Yes, I got that." Also, the show is wonderfully produced. This little world of perfection has been designed beautifully to look not just special, but unique. And there are effective special effects, like when things go horribly wrong (as I mentioned) and giant ladybugs attack or garbage rains down from the sky, or when Ted Danson freaks out, sees a fluffy dog that he thinks shouldn't be there and kicks it high up into sky, where it crashes into the sun. (Not to worry, when a resident comes looking for her dog, Danson is able to get it back, though not without some more flustering.) Or when residents get to learn to fly -- something Bell misses out on because her "teacher" volunteers her to help pick up garbage. ("Oh, that's just great," she says, dripping with deeply-annoyed sarcasm, "because that's how I always envisioned heaven, a place where you spend the day picking up garbage in plastic bags rather than learning how to fly.") And then above all, Kristen Bell and Ted Danson are utter joys. She, I expected. Yet she still is able to milk nuances and sight gags and physical comedy and dialogue to get the most out of it all. Ted Danson, though, plays against type and gets it all right. A warm, sweet, nurturing official on the surface who is a mass of insecurity and nerves underneath, on his first assignment who's mortified he's gotten it all wrong. He show wonderful acting in Season Two of Fargo, and he's continued it here. There are a few big hurdles with the show. One is that right now it's more a "concept" and unclear how the story will be developed over time, that has enough turns to keep sameness from taking over. Additionally, there's a challenge that as Kristen Bell learns about becoming nicer that the edges of her character aren't removed to the extent that she becomes uninteresting -- yet if they aren't removed, the show isn't going anywhere. Also, the show will have to develop more full-rounded characters to create a "world" we care about, so that everything isn't just Kristen Bell dealing with her personal circumstance. There are a few different characters that are a start, most notably three: Danson, Bell's conflicted confidante, and a helpful, but pushy next-door neighbor, but there needs to be more. Ultimately, of course, this was just a one-hour pilot, so these are all hurdles that can be dealt with. To be clear, as much as I liked the pilot, this is no guarantee for success. Not only do they have to address these hurdles, but the show has a lot of whimsy, and a sense of fantasy, and those aren't always everyone's taste. They are mine. The next episode appears on Thursday in its regular timeslot. But suggestion, if you do plan to give the show a try, is watch the 2-part hourlong pilot first, which I'm sure will be available On Demand. Or you can watch it here on the NBC website. Here are two extended clips. The first comes when Ted Danson is initially showing Kristen Bell around, certain she is such an incredibly wonderful person. And this second is when Kristen Bell tries to get her confidante "soul mate" to help her become a good person, despite her many character flaws of her past. I've always loved the writings of the late columnist Molly Ivins, though never read any of her books. I finally got around to reading her most famous, Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush, co-written with Lou Dubose, about her years covering him in the Texas statehouse, as well has his checkered career before.
The book is terrific, and interesting historically since it was was published in 2000 before he became president, and was released during the Republican primary. It was also difficult to read, particularly in retrospect, knowing what a dismal and divisive job he did in the White House and seeing how it was all there in his record, and worse. I'm not going to get into that, though, because I'd end up quoting almost the entire book. In fact, I want to single out two brief passages that come in the introduction. They both point to one of the reasons I like to read current events books when they are no longer current, but history. They add a perspective you would never see -- could never even possibly see -- if you read them at the time of publication. The first comes on the very first page. Ivins is discussing how conventional wisdom is often wrong, and the course of history often takes a different route than what we expect. And in writing about this, she makes an example to prove her point -- but then makes an off-handed quip, indeed tossed in as the last sentence of the paragraph, not knowing how it makes her point even far better than she could have ever imagined, because it's so pointed to today, 16 years after being written. She writes -- "The quality of leaders does change history, even in a world supposedly dominated by economic and technological forces. Just for example, Nelson Mandela and Slobodan Milosevic were elected within a few years of one another, each at a point when the unity of his country hung by a hair. They got different results. Since there appears to be a shortage of young Abe Lincolns about these days, it's a mercy America is at no such dire divide." And here we have Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, born with a few years of one another, at a point when the unity of our country hangs by a hair. Each offering different results, at a time of dire, racist, hate-filled, violent divide. The second in some ways is even more prescient. At the very least, it's more head-shaking, though we shouldn't be surprised since it's written by someone who studied and wrote about George W. Bush so closely and for so long. She's talking about Bush's frat-boy personality, and his sense of pompous macho to prove his toughness. Again, remember, this was written in 2000, before George W. Bush was even elected president. She writes -- "For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too hard-ass -- at a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy. But it's also a common Texas mail trait. Somebody should probably be worrying about how all this could affect his handling of future encounters with some Saddam Hussein, but that's beyond the scope of this book." You just read that and keep flipping back to the publication date to make sure that it really, actually was written before he became president. And then you again understand why you always liked and admired Molly Ivins so much. And why you love reading current events after the facts. And why you think it's critical to always remind people of the famous quote by historian Georges Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I just finished writing this piece below on the Kennedy Centers Honor tribute to Lerner & Loewe. I wasn't sure what to title it, and considered, "Loverly." So, I did a search to see if I had used that title previously. It turns out that not only had I used it -- I used it for an article I wrote three years ago about the Kennedy Centers tribute to Lerner & Loewe! In fact, as I skimmed through the piece, I started laughing because what I wrote three years ago was borderline the same to what I wrote here. Similar stories, similar points, I even begin them almost the same. (If you don't believe me, here's the link.) But since I took the time to write it, I'm not going to waste the effort. If I didn't remember it from three years ago, I'm guessing that many others here don't remember it either. And there are some new folks here, as well. And besides, it's a very enjoyable video. So, diving back in, here's the new-ish version. As I was saying -- In the early days of the Kennedy Center Honors, they seemed to celebrate not just very popular "greats," but rather legends. Here's their tribute in 1985 to the Broadway team of Lerner & Loewe, who wrote My Fair Lady, Camelot, Brigadoon & Paint Your Wagon, among other shows. Frederick Loewe retired after Camelot, though Alan Jay Lerner continued on for quite a long while after, but without the same success. (Actually, without much success. His musical with Burton Lane for On a Clear Day You Can See Forever did quite well, and even had a movie version, but that's largely it. But he did work a lot.) Lerner & Loewe did re-team twice for a couple of projects. One was the movie musical, where Lowe came out of retirement to write the score to the movie musical, The Little Prince, that starred Richard Kiley (from Man of La Mancha) and featured a wonderful song performed by Gene Wilder, which I posted here. The other was a stage version of Gigi that Lerner adapted, and got Loewe to collaborate again on four new songs added to the score. This Kennedy Center tribute is broken into two videos. A few things worth noting -- The whole thing runs for 24 minutes. The conversation and video history are interesting, but if you want to jump right to the singing, it all starts at 10:45. Also, the second video only runs for 10 minutes, not the 12:30 it suggests it does. I don't want to give away any of the surprises in some of the performances, but will note that two particularly stood out for me: the songs "I Remember It Well" (from the film Gigi) and "With a Little Bit of Luck" (from My Fair Lady). One of the performers is Liz Robertson. At the time, she was married to Lerner -- his eighth marriage. They had met during a revival of My Fair Lady, where she played Eliza Doolittle. (They continued to be married at the time of his death in 1986.) She appears in the opening, with Robert Goulet, but is unidentified until later. Michelle Lee does a nice job singing, "Almost Like Being in Love," from Brigadoon, but inexplicably makes a lyric change which no doubt must have galled lyricist Lerner. The original is a clever inner-rhyme which goes -- Maybe the sun Gave me the power But I could swim Loch Lomon' And be home in Half an Hour For whatever reason known to her, she changes the line to -- But I could swim Loch Lomon' And be back in Half an hour. One final thing. When the camera cuts to Lerner and Loewe in the balcony, Frederick Lowe is on your left, while Alan Jay Lerner is the skinny fellow to the right. And it's all hosted by Rex Harrison. Yesterday, I wrote a long piece about how so much of the media was focusing on trying to find problems with Hillary Clinton and, oddly, the Clinton Family Foundation, when standing right next to them is Donald freaking Trump and a treasure trove of scandals and stories going unexamined. I mentioned all this to a friend and said how it reminded me of one of my favorite lines from The Mary Tyler Moore Show.
In the episode, Lou Grant’s nephew has been interning at the TV station and is an incompetent screw-up. One day, he’s out with one of the station's cameras and happens to be right nearby where a big fire has broken out. Lou is thrilled because he realized they’re going to scoop every other station in the city. When the nephew comes back with the footage, they discover that the only film they have is a close-up of a bug crawling along the sidewalk. Lou is utterly furious and asks the kid why??? The nephew answers, “I wanted to show that while a fire is raging…life goes on.” Lou looks at him a moment, holding his anger in as best he can, and then finally replies – “Did it over occur to you to show that while life is going on…right next to it THERE IS A BIG FIRE BURNING!!!!” And that is how I feel about the media investigating the Clinton Family Foundation. And continuing to ask questions about emails, despite an FBI investigation that exonerated her. All the while right next to her THERE IS DONALD TRUMP!!!! I've posted a bunch of videos of Mandy Patinkin singing and told about seeing him performing in his hometown Chicago at the Ravinia Music Festival. This has no singing in it. Just 10 wonderfully entertaining, uncommon minutes as a guest on the Live with Kelly & Michael show. The title of the video mentions him being surprised, and...well, he his. Often talk shows have a guest being surprised, and they are, and it's sort of cute and then it's over, fine. But this...well, they do surprise him. But the thing that makes this video so terrific is who the person being surprised is, Mandy Patinkin. He's just so warm and friendly and thrilled that it is an utter joy and he allows you to share in his being enthralled. Also, it's worth nothing ahead of time that after a few minutes, as you enjoy the piece, you look at the clock and wonder, hmm, how can they can this conversation going for 10 minutes?? It's lovely and charming, but can it sustain that long. Well...as you've noticed, I haven't said much about what actually is going on. And I won't. All I will say is stick with it, it does sustain for 10 minutes. And Mandy Patinkin comes across great. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|